DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
35 U.S.C.101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
● Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1)
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-One:
The claim(s) recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Considering each of claims 1 and 11 as representative claims, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
select an alarm type from a plurality of alarm types; customize the selected alarm type based, at least in part, on environment and data of a user; replicate the customized alarm type; practice responding to the replicated customized alarm type; train and test knowledge of the plurality of alarm types including the customized alarm type; and [present] a result of the test representing an accuracy of immediate feedback from the user during [the] test.
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
For instance, the claims correspond to managing personal behavior; wherein, based on an alarm type that the user is selecting for practicing or training, the user is presented with a scenario related to the selected alarm type, which comprises a customized alarm type (i.e., a customized alarm type comprising at least one parameter based—at least in part—on environment and operations data of the user); and furthermore, based on feedback received from the user regarding a test presented to evaluate the knowledge of a plurality of alarm types and the customized alarm, a result representing the accuracy of the user’s feedback is presented, etc.
Similarly, given the claimed limitations that recite the process of: training or testing the knowledge of the user regarding the plurality of alarm types and/or the customized alarm type based on the user’s response to the test; generating a result of the test that represents the accuracy of the user’s response, etc., the claims also correspond the group mental processes; i.e., an evaluation, a judgment, an opinion, etc.
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-Two:
The claims recite additional element(s), wherein alarms simulator is utilized to facilitate the recited functions/steps regarding: replicating a selected alarm based on the user’s selection (e.g., “a practice mode configured to replicate a selected alarm type from a plurality of alarm types to train a user . . . the selected alarm type comprises a customized alarm type comprising at least one parameter based, at least in part, on environment and operations data of the user”); testing the knowledge of the user (e.g., “a test mode configured to train and test knowledge of the plurality of alarm types including the customized alarm type based, at least in part, on an immediate feedback input by the user”); presenting pertinent information (a result) based on the analysis of the user’s feedback (e.g., “a display configured to display a result of the test mode representing an accuracy of the immediate feedback input from the user”), etc.
However, the claimed additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional element(s) are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Thus, when each claim is considered as a whole, the additional element(s) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since they fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For instance, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides an improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The observations above confirm that the claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Accordingly, when the claim(s) is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions. Accordingly, none of the current claims, when considered as a whole, recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
It is also worth noting—per the original disclosure—that the claimed simulator/method is directed to a conventional and generic arrangement of the additional elements. For instance, the specification describes a conventional computer system in the form of one or more commercially available conventional computer devices (e.g., a laptop computer, a tablet computer, smartphone, etc.); and wherein the conventional computer system is utilized to implement the alarms simulator (e.g., see [0036]), which facilitates the claimed abstract idea identified above (see prong-one of Step 2A).
In addition, the practice of utilizing the conventional computer/network technology to facilitate the presentation of pertinent content to a user(s), including the process of presenting training and/or assessment materials based on simulating one or more emergency scenarios, etc., is directed to a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art (e.g., see US 2016/0086515; US 2015/0287310; US 9,489,825, etc.).
The above observation confirms that the current claimed invention fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 2-10 and 12-20). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element(s) utilized to facilitate the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the findings above demonstrate that none of the claims implements an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the current claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing/conventional technology).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C.112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C.112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
● Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites, “the at least one parameter comprises sound intensity and sound duration for the selected alarm type” (emphasis added); and
claim 14 recites, “wherein configuring the at least one parameter comprises choosing sound intensity and sound duration for the selected alarm type” (emphasis added).
However, it is unclear how a single parameter—i.e., the one parameter—is considered to be both sound intensity and sound duration since these are to different parameters. Consequently, each of claims 4 and 14 is ambiguous at least for the reason pointed out above.
Nevertheless, for examination purpose, the parameter above is considered to be a sound intensity or a sound duration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C.103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Deiiuliis 2015/0287310 in view of Short 2011/0229864.
Regarding claim 1, teaches the following claimed limitations: an alarms simulator comprising: a practice mode configured to replicate a selected alarm type from a plurality of alarm types to train a user on the plurality of alarm types based, at least in part, on a response of the user ([0006]; [0169]; [0174] to [0177]; [0203]; [0206]: e.g., a system that comprises one or more electronic devices, wherein the system simulates one or more alarms related to one or more hazardous scenarios; and wherein, besides allowing a user to activate a drill mode, the system further allows a user to select a type of drill—such as, a fire drill, a carbon monoxide drill, etc., so that the system simulates pertinent alarm based on the selected drill, etc. It is worth to note that the selection the type of drill is accomplished by selecting the type of alarm; see FIG 30, labels “3006”. Thus, the system already implements alarms simulator that compromises a drill mode, which is the practice mode; and this practice mode is configured to replicate a selected alarm type from a plurality of alarm types to train a user on the plurality of alarm types based on a response of the user, i.e., the type of drill that the user has selected), wherein the selected alarm type comprises a customized alarm type comprising at least one parameter based, at least in part, on environment and operations data of the user ([0183], lines 1-9; [0184] lines 1-12; [0210]; [0264]: e.g., the selected drill comprises one or more parameters, which customizes the alarm being generated; such as: the format of the sound of the alarm—such as, a specific announcement to be made between alarm soundings; the duration of the alarm, the loudness of the sound depending on the environment, etc. Accordingly, the selected alarm type already comprises a customized alarm type comprising at least one parameter based on environment and operations data of the user); a test mode configured to train and test knowledge of the plurality of alarm types including the customized alarm type based, at least in part, on an immediate feedback input by the user; and a display configured to display a result of the test mode representing an accuracy of the immediate feedback input from the user ([0188] to [0192]; [0215]: e.g., when the drill is completed, the system generates a checklist that lists a plurality of actions expected to be performed during the selected drill; and the user is required to indicate which of the one or more actions are performed during the drill; and furthermore, based on the feedback received from the user, the system presents pertinent information to the user—such as: one or more actions that should have been taken during the drill, etc. Thus, the above process of generating a check list—after the completion of the drill—indicates the test mode, which is configured to train and test knowledge of the plurality of alarm types including the customized alarm type based, at least in part, on an immediate feedback input by the user. Similarly, the process of generating, based on feedback received from the user, pertinent information to the user—such as: one or more actions that should have been taken during the drill, etc., indicates the implementation of a display, which is already configured to display a result of the test mode representing an accuracy of the immediate feedback input from the user).
Deiiuliis does not expressly describe that the test mode above is to train and test the user’s knowledge.
However, Short teaches a training system/method that comprises one or more computer devices ([0104]); wherein the system is configured to provide a user with training materials ([0114]), including training materials related to Fire Safety ([0168]); and furthermore, based on one or more responses received from a user in response to one or more quizzes, the system generates one or more results that indicate the use’s knowledge ([0204]; [0205]; [0210] to [0213]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Deiiuliis in view of Short; for example, by incorporating one or more quiz materials per each of the one or more alarm types—such as, (a) quiz materials pertinent to the fire drill, (b) quiz materials pertinent the carbon monoxide drill, etc., and wherein the system further presents to the user, based on each of the one or more drill types that the user is selecting, one or more pertinent quizzes, including one or more scores determined based on one or more answers received from the user in response to one or more of the quizzes, etc., so that, besides generating information regarding the accuracy of the one or more drills being conducted, the system further generates information that reflects the user’s skills relating to each of the one or more drill/alarm types, etc., and this helps the user to further expand his/her skills regarding the various types of hazardous scenarios.
Regarding claim 2, Deiiuliis in view of Short teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above.
Although Deiiuliis does not describe that a preferred language selected for labeling the plurality of alarm types, Short already teaches that the training system is multilingual; and it allows the user to select a desired language ([0123] lines 4-7).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the invention of Deiiuliis in view of Short; for example, by upgrading the system to support multiple languages; and thereby, the system further allows the user to select a desired language prior to starting the training/simulation session (e.g., allowing the user to select the desired language during the initial login screen, etc.); so that, both the various quizzes and the various alarm/drill types, including pertinent instructions and/or explanations, are presented to the user according to the desired language that the user has selected, etc., so that, the user would not face significant difficulty due to language barrier; and this further enhances the user’s chance to fully comprehend the subject matter.
Regarding claim 3, Deiiuliis in view of Short teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 2.
The limitation, “wherein a series of instructions regarding the alarms simulator is in the preferred language selected”, is already addressed above per the modification discussed with respect to claim 2. This is because the system uses the desired language, which the user has selected (e.g., during the login screen), to present the various materials, including the instructions and/or explanations that relate to each of the one or more alarms/drills. Accordingly, the modification above already demonstrates that “a series of instructions regarding the alarms simulator is in the preferred language selected” (note also that the same motivation applies to claim 3 given its dependence on claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, Deiiuliis in view of Short teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
Deiiuliis further teaches, the at least one parameter comprises sound intensity and sound duration for the selected alarm type ([0183]; [0184]; [0264]: e.g., the at least one parameter is an alarm duration, which is the sound duration of the selected alarm type, or the loudness—i.e., the intensity—of the sound).
Regarding claim 5, Deiiuliis in view of Short teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
Deiiuliis does not expressly describe that the plurality of alarm types comprises a hydrogen sulfide (H2S) alarm and a lower explosive limit (LEL) alarm.
However, Deiiuliis already teaches that the system allows the user to simulate different types emergency scenarios; and furthermore, the system provides the user with an interface, which allows the user to select a drill/alarm type from a plurality of drill/alarm types, including: a fire drill/alarm, a smoke drill/alarm, a carbon monoxide drill/alarm, etc. ([0169]; [0176]; [0206]; also FIG 30).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Deiiuliis; for example, by incorporating, based on the type of occupation and/or work environment of the user (e.g., a repair shop that repairs electronic and/or mechanical equipment; a construction site that frequently performs one or more demolitions; a factory that manufactures electronic or chemical products, etc.), one or more additional types of alarms (e.g., a hydrogen sulfide alarm, a lower explosive limit alarm, etc.); so that, the user(s) would have further opportunities to learn the characteristic of additional alarm types that may be pertinent to the specific condition of the user(s).
Regarding claim 6, Deiiuliis in view of Short teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
Deiiuliis does not expressly describe that the plurality of alarm types comprises a general emergency alarm, an all-clear alarm, and a stop work alarm.
However, Deiiuliis already teaches that the system allows the user to simulate different types emergency scenarios; and furthermore, the system provides the user with an interface, which allows the user to select a drill/alarm type from a plurality of drill/alarm types, including: a fire drill/alarm, a carbon monoxide drill/alarm, a shelter-in place drill/alarm, or other suitable drill/alarm types ([0169]; [0176]; [0206]; FIG 30); and furthermore, the selected alarm can be configured to make one or more desired announcements—such as, “THIS IS ONLY A DRILL”, “GET TO THE MEETING PLACE”, etc. ([0183]; [0214]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Deiiuliis; for example, by incorporating, based on the type of occupation and/or work environment of the user(s) (e.g., a building where a given family is residing [0187]; a building where a plurality of visitors are residing [0264], etc.), one or more additional types of alarms (e.g., a leave or exist the building alarm; a general emergency alarm; an all-clear alarm; a stop work alarm, etc.); so that, the user(s) would have further opportunities to learn the characteristic of additional alarm and/or announcement types that may be pertinent to the specific condition of the user(s).
Deiiuliis in view of Short teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1. Deiiuliis further teaches:
Regarding claim 7, the customized alarm type comprises a sound file with various alarm sounds configured to be changed ([0183]; [0264]: e.g., the alarm makes one or more audible announcements between alarm soundings, and/or the alarm automatically varies the loudness of the sound based on detected ambient sound. Accordingly, the above signifies that the customized alarm type already comprises a sound file with various alarm sounds configured to be changed);
Regarding claim 8, wherein the plurality of alarm types comprises a name for each of the plurality of alarm types, wherein the name is configured to change ([0169]; [0176]; [0206]; FIG 30: e.g., the system already allows the user to select a type of drill/alarm from a plurality of different types of drills/alarms—such as, a fire drill/alarm, a carbon monoxide drill/alarm, etc. Accordingly, the plurality of alarm types already comprises a name for each of the plurality of alarm types; and the name is configured to change);
Regarding claim 9, wherein the alarms simulator is portable or fixed to a manufacturing building ([0144]; [0146]; [0169]; [0174]: e.g., the alarms simulator is already in the form of a portable electronic device).
Regarding claim 10, Deiiuliis in view of Short teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 9.
The limitation, “wherein the manufacturing building is a maintenance building, an original equipment manufacturer (OME), or a Coast Centre Base (CCB)”, is merely describing a type of building; and none of the types of buildings mentioned above appears to have anything to do with the structural and/or functional features of the alarms simulator.
Moreover, claim 10 is referring to an optional limitation that claim 9 is reciting. In particular, claim 9 requires the simulator to be portable or to be fixed to a manufacturing building, but not both. Thus, the prior art is not necessarily required to teach the optional limitation as long as it is teaching a portable alarms simulator. Nevertheless, Deiiuliis already teaches that the device can be attached to a wall of a building ([0146]); and thus, it does contemplate the optional limitation even though it is not necessarily required to teach the above optional limitation.
Regarding claim 11, Deiiuliis teaches the following claimed limitations: a method for using an alarms simulator, the method comprising: selecting an alarm type from a plurality of alarm types ([0006]; [0169]; [0206]; FIG 30: e.g., a system/method comprising at least one portable electronic device, which allows a user to simulate one or more emergency scenarios; wherein the system comprises a user-interface that allows the user to select a drill/alarm type from a plurality of drill/alarm types); customizing the selected alarm type based, at least in part, on environment and operations data of a user by configuring at least one parameter for the selected alarm type; replicating the customized alarm type; practicing responding to the replicated customized alarm type in a practice mode operated on the alarms simulator ([0174] to [0177]; [0183], lines 1-9; [0184] lines 1-12; [0206] to [0210]; [0264]: e.g., besides allowing the system to select a drill/alarm types, the system allows the user to activate the selected drill/alarm, wherein such activation corresponds to the practice mode. Moreover, the system already allows the user to customize the drill/alarm according to one or more parameters—such as, a parameter that signifies the type of audio and/or visual cue(s) to be presented during the generation of the alarm/drill, etc., and accordingly, the system generates the simulation based on one or more of the parameters that the user has specified—such as, making a particular announcement between alarm soundings, etc. Accordingly, besides customizing the selected alarm type based, at least in part, on environment and operations data of a user by configuring at least one parameter for the selected alarm type, the system also replicates the customized alarm type; and furthermore, a user(s) practices responding to the replicated customized alarm type in a practice mode operated on the alarms simulator); operating the alarms simulator in a test mode to train and test knowledge of the plurality of alarm types including the customized alarm type; and displaying, via a display on the alarms simulator, a result of the test mode representing an accuracy of immediate feedback from the user during test mode ([0188] to [0192]; [0215]: e.g., when the drill is completed, the system generates a checklist that lists a plurality of actions expected to be performed during the selected drill; and the user is required to indicate which of the one or more actions are performed during the drill; and furthermore, based on the feedback received from the user, the system presents pertinent information to the user—such as: one or more actions that should have been taken during the drill, etc. Thus, the above process of generating a check list—after the completion of the drill—indicates the test mode, which is configured to train and test knowledge of the plurality of alarm types including the customized alarm type. Similarly, the process of generating, based on feedback received from the user, pertinent information to the user—such as: one or more actions that should have been taken during the drill, etc., indicates the process of displaying, via a display on the alarms simulator, a result of the test mode representing an accuracy of immediate feedback from the user during test mode).
Deiiuliis does not expressly describe that the test mode above is to train and test the user’s knowledge.
However, Short teaches a training system/method that comprises one or more computer devices ([0104]); wherein the system is configured to provide a user with training materials ([0114]), including training materials related to Fire Safety ([0168]); and furthermore, based on one or more responses received from a user in response to one or more quizzes, the system generates one or more results that indicate the use’s knowledge ([0204]; [0205]; [0210] to [0213]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Deiiuliis in view of Short; for example, by incorporating one or more quiz materials per each of the one or more alarm types—such as, (a) quiz materials pertinent to the fire drill, (b) quiz materials pertinent the carbon monoxide drill, etc., and wherein the system further presents to the user, based on each of the one or more drill types that the user is selecting, one or more pertinent quizzes, including one or more scores determined based on one or more answers received from the user in response to one or more of the quizzes, etc., so that, besides generating information regarding the accuracy of the one or more drills being conducted, the system further generates information that reflects the user’s skills relating to each of the one or more drill/alarm types, etc., and this helps the user to further expand his/her skills regarding the various types of hazardous scenarios.
Regarding claim 12, Deiiuliis in view of Short teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 11.
Although Deiiuliis does not describe selecting a preferred language for labeling the plurality of alarm types, Short already teaches that the training system is multilingual; and it allows the user to select a desired language ([0123] lines 4-7).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the invention of Deiiuliis in view of Short; for example, by upgrading the system to support multiple languages; and thereby, the system further allows the user to select a desired language prior to starting the training/simulation session (e.g., allowing the user to select the desired language during the initial login screen, etc.); so that, both the various quizzes and the various alarm/drill types, including pertinent instructions and/or explanations, are presented to the user according to the desired language that the user has selected, etc., so that, the user would not face significant difficulty due to language barrier; and this further enhances the user’s chance to fully comprehend the subject matter.
Regarding claim 13, Deiiuliis in view of Short teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 12.
The limitation, “wherein selecting the preferred language comprises reporting a series of instructions in the preferred language regarding the alarms simulator”, is already addressed above per the modification discussed with respect to claim 12. In particular, the system is using the desired language, which the user has selected (e.g., during the login screen), to present the various materials, including the instructions and/or explanations that relate to each of the one or more alarms/drills. Accordingly, the modification above already demonstrates that the process of “selecting the preferred language comprises reporting a series of instructions in the preferred language regarding the alarms simulator” (it is worth to note that the same motivation, which is discussed per claim 12, applies to claim 13 since it is dependent on claim 12).
Regarding claim 14, Deiiuliis in view of Short teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 11.
Deiiuliis further teaches, configuring the at least one parameter comprises choosing sound intensity and sound duration for the selected alarm type ([0183]; [0184]; [0264]: e.g., the configuration of the least one parameter comprises an alarm duration, which is the sound duration of the selected alarm type, or the loudness—i.e., the intensity—of the sound).
Regarding claim 15, Deiiuliis in view of Short teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 11.
Deiiuliis does not expressly describe selecting a hydrogen sulfide (H2S) alarm and a lower explosive limit (LEL) alarm.
However, Deiiuliis already teaches that the system allows the user to simulate different types emergency scenarios; and furthermore, the system provides the user with an interface, which allows the user to select a drill/alarm type from a plurality of drill/alarm types, including: a fire drill/alarm, a smoke drill/alarm, a carbon monoxide drill/alarm, etc. ([0169]; [0176]; [0206]; also FIG 30).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Deiiuliis; for example, by incorporating, based on the type of occupation and/or work environment of the user (e.g., a repair shop that repairs electronic and/or mechanical equipment; a construction site that frequently performs one or more demolitions; a factory that manufactures electronic or chemical products, etc.), one or more additional types of alarms (e.g., a hydrogen sulfide alarm, a lower explosive limit alarm, etc.); so that, the user(s) would have further opportunities to learn the characteristic of additional alarm types that may be pertinent to the specific condition of the user(s).
Regarding claim 16, Deiiuliis in view of Short teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 11.
Deiiuliis does not expressly describe selecting a general emergency alarm, an all-clear alarm, and a stop work alarm.
However, Deiiuliis already teaches that the system allows the user to simulate different types emergency scenarios; and furthermore, the system provides the user with an interface, which allows the user to select a drill/alarm type from a plurality of drill/alarm types, including: a fire drill/alarm, a carbon monoxide drill/alarm, a shelter-in place drill/alarm, or other suitable drill/alarm types ([0169]; [0176]; [0206]; FIG 30); and furthermore, the selected alarm can be configured to make one or more desired announcements—such as, “THIS IS ONLY A DRILL”, “GET TO THE MEETING PLACE”, etc. ([0183]; [0214]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Deiiuliis; for example, by incorporating, based on the type of occupation and/or work environment of the user(s) (e.g., a building where a given family is residing [0187]; a building where a plurality of visitors are residing [0264], etc.), one or more additional types of alarms (e.g., a leave or exist the building alarm; a general emergency alarm; an all-clear alarm; a stop work alarm, etc.); so that, the user(s) would have further opportunities to learn the characteristic of additional alarm and/or announcement types that may be pertinent to the specific condition of the user(s).
Deiiuliis in view of Short teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 11. Deiiuliis further teaches:
Regarding claim 17, customizing the selected alarm type comprises changing a sound file with various alarm sounds ([0183]; [0264]: e.g., the alarm makes one or more audible announcements between alarm soundings, and/or the alarm automatically varies the loudness of the sound based on detected ambient sound. Thus, the process of customizing the selected alarm type comprises changing a sound file with various alarm sounds);
Regarding claim 18, wherein selecting the alarm type comprises changing a name of each of the plurality of alarm types ([0169]; [0176]; [0206]; FIG 30: e.g., the system already allows the user to select a type of drill/alarm from a plurality of different types of drills/alarms—such as, a fire drill/alarm, a carbon monoxide drill/alarm, etc. Thus, selecting the alarm type already comprises changing a name of each of the plurality of alarm types);
Regarding claim 19, wherein the alarms simulator is portable or fixed to a manufacturing building ([0144]; [0146]; [0169]; [0174]: e.g., the alarms simulator is already in the form of a portable electronic device).
Regarding claim 20, Deiiuliis in view of Short teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 19.
The limitation, “wherein the manufacturing building is a maintenance building, an original equipment manufacturer (OME), or a Coast Centre Base (CCB)”, is merely describing a type of building; and none of the types of buildings mentioned above appears to have anything to do with the structural and/or functional features of the alarms simulator.
Moreover, claim 10 is referring to an optional limitation that claim 9 is reciting. In particular, claim 9 requires the simulator to be portable or to be fixed to a manufacturing building, but not both. Thus, the prior art is not necessarily required to teach the optional limitation as long as it is teaching a portable alarms simulator. Nevertheless, Deiiuliis already teaches that the device can be attached to a wall of a building ([0146]); and thus, it does contemplate the optional limitation even though it is not necessarily required to teach the above optional limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAVID LEWIS can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715